garrence Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Snowden is a traitor that's all. he's provided information detrimental to security Eh? All he's done is wake the public up to the outrageous extent to which they are being surveilled. In "the land of the free" that is surely a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 What's the alternative ? Torturing suspicious-looking folks until they tell you the history of the world ? Reality differs somewhat from TV shows starring Kiefer Sutherland. Torturing suspicious looking folk? I thought they were looking at emails. I know they CAN look at everyone's emails but are there not checks and balances put in place? I recall Hague banging on about something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANAdeLdF Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 You can either be pragmatic or naively idealistic. If pragmatism amounts to "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it", then you can keep it. (Google the quote if you must, although I'm sure you already know it) The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on what's permitted and what isn't. As soon as one bypasses the legal safeguards that protect personal liberty, one turns criminal. True, Jefferson could surely not have imagined the travesties that were revealed about his republic in the last few days. Snowden is a traitor that's all. he's provided information detrimental to security just as your traitors Blunt, Burgess and McLean did back in the 1960s Talk about the Cold War : that was the standard justification of the Stalinists whenever they eliminated dissidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 So your argument is some terrorists use the internet, so we must monitor the whole internet? In the cold light of day that makes absolutely no sense. Well what if it was decided that only those people who use the net should be monitored because they are Muslims ? Would singling out anyone at an airport who wore Muslim dress or seemed to look like a person from the mid east for security vetting while leaving the rest of us alone be fair? In the cold light of day that makes it absolutely unfair, discriminatory and a violation of the kind of society we strive to live in today ---------- Post added 23-06-2013 at 22:39 ---------- If pragmatism amounts to "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it", then you can keep it. (Google the quote if you must, although I'm sure you already know it) The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on what's permitted and what isn't. As soon as one bypasses the legal safeguards that protect personal liberty, one turns criminal. True, Jefferson could surely not have imagined the travesties that were revealed about his republic in the last few days. Talk about the Cold War : that was the standard justification of the Stalinists whenever they eliminated dissidents. Whats changed in Russia? A girls rock group sentenced to jail because they sang a song about Putin If Snowden had done the same in present day Russia he would have been found dead in his Hong kong hotel room already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Snowden is a traitor that's all. he's provided information detrimental to security just as your traitors Blunt, Burgess and McLean did back in the 1960sIt's reactionary fools like you who have denied him any chance of a fair trial in your country. Also, does anyone else see the irony that he has been accused of spying for exposing the NSA spying on it's own citizens? It's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 If pragmatism amounts to "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it", then you can keep it. (Google the quote if you must, although I'm sure you already know it) The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on what's permitted and what isn't. As soon as one bypasses the legal safeguards that protect personal liberty, one turns criminal. True, Jefferson could surely not have imagined the travesties that were revealed about his republic in the last few days. Talk about the Cold War : that was the standard justification of the Stalinists whenever they eliminated dissidents. post deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANAdeLdF Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Torturing suspicious looking folk? I thought they were looking at emails. You had asked if due legal process might not sometimes be rather limiting. Yes indeed. The limits as prescribed by law are there for your protection. And mine, and Harleyman's, and everyone else's. I know they CAN look at everyone's emails but are there not checks and balances put in place? Exactly. If the police believe they have probable cause to intercept someone's communications, they have to make a case for it. If it's then legally approved, fine. If not, there will have been good reasons for the legal system's refusal to OK the surveillance measure. It's the difference between systems governed by guidelines as given in the Fourth Amendment, and Stasi-era East Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Also, does anyone else see the irony that he has been accused of spying for exposing the NSA spying on it's own citizens? It's absurd. Americans don't understand irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It's reactionary fools like you who have denied him any chance of a fair trial in your country. Also, does anyone else see the irony that he has been accused of spying for exposing the NSA spying on it's own citizens? It's absurd. You're a bigger fool than I because you still believe that in your idealistic society that the same isn't going on. You haven't had your own Snowden yet but it's coming.... dont worry. As for a fair trial he could get one if he decided to return instead of bolting like a jack rabbit ---------- Post added 23-06-2013 at 22:58 ---------- Americans don't understand irony. Irony. Yes I understand Irony. It's a product that used to be made in forges in Sheffield when that city still counted for anything in the industrial world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 You're a bigger fool than I because you still believe that in your idealistic society that the same isn't going on. Nope, you have no idea what I believe, and in this case you are 100% wrong. Of course our government is trying all the same stuff. I'm much less of a fool than you. ---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 00:08 ---------- As for a fair trial he could get one if he decided to return instead of bolting like a jack rabbit No he couldn't, because most of your media (and you, apparently) have already decided that he's guilty, and many government officials too. He could get a trial, yes, but not a fair one, like I said. That's why he fled. ---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 00:10 ---------- Americans don't understand irony. Yes they do, let's leave out the national stereotypes eh? You'll only add to Harleyman's persecution complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.